eBay on Thursday canceled an auction that sought to resell a music download that was purchased through Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store, saying the attempted sale violated its listing policies.

The move for now brings to an end a quirky effort to dramatize some of the less-obvious effects of the music industry's shift from physical media sales to digital downloads--in this case the question of whether Internet customers can resell songs they've purchased in digital form.

"eBay shutting down the auction for violating its terms of service doesn't have much to do with the original question of whether people can transfer legally purchased music downloads," Hotelling said in an interview Thursday.

Under the "First Sale" doctrine, the owner of a lawful copy of a work is allowed to sell it without the permission of the copyright owner. But such a policy could cause complications if applied to works sold only in digital form.

In launching the iTunes store in April, Apple CEO Steve Jobs proclaimed that consumers don't want to rent music but rather own it. But restrictions on resale, if they are enforced, would seem to suggest more of a rental model than an ownership model.

Apple declined to comment.

Although iTunes tracks come with copy restrictions, Hotelling said he believes he can successfully transfer the file to a third party. One extreme solution would be to hand over his account information and password to the buyer, although he said he would rather not have to resort to that method.

iTunes' terms of service are the most liberal among Internet music download services, allowing buyers to burn songs to CDs more or less freely and transfer them to Apple's iPod portable music players. In addition, iTunes customers can authorize any Macintosh computer to access their music files, although only three computers can be authorized at once.

Hotelling said he has not contacted Apple or heard from the company since seeking to auction the song, the Devin Vasquez remake of Frankie Smith's song "Double Dutch Bus."

Hotelling said he received a notice from eBay on Thursday that it was shutting down the auction for violating its downloadable media policy, which "prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet."

He said he sent a reply to eBay seeking to have the auction reinstated, arguing that he could transfer the file in a manner that would not violate the download policy. As of late Thursday, he had not received a response, he said.

eBay did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A long history of debate
One online copyright expert said the application of the first-sale doctrine to downloads has been actively debated for years, with policymakers until now largely opposed to extending the privilege from physical to digital goods.

Seth Greenstein, an attorney with the Washington, D.C., law firm McDermott Will & Emory, said a green paper put out by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1992 found that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods. The paper authors argued that the doctrine relates to the physical distribution of a work, but that the transfer of digital goods implies making a copy of the work--something that's not explicitly addressed in the doctrine.

The study examined the argument that the first-sale doctrine should apply to digital goods, as long as resellers erased their own copy of the work approximately simultaneously with the transfer of the file, a process known as "forward and delete."

"Proponents of expansion of the scope of (the first-sale doctrine) to include the transmission and deletion of a digital file argue that this activity is essentially identical to the transfer of a physical copy and that the similarities outweigh the differences," the study states. "While it is true that there are similarities, we find the analogy to the physical world to be flawed and unconvincing."

The Copyright Office added, however, that the issue should not be considered resolved once and for all, pointing to important possible exceptions, notably for libraries.

Greenstein, who has represented groups seeking to extend the first-sale doctrine to digital goods, said the official interpretation is troubling and likely open to further clarification. Greenstein added that online vendors such as Apple should in theory be able to create technology to support forward-and-delete capabilities.

"The essence of the transaction is no different in transferring a physical and a digital work. What's being transmitted in both cases is access to the work," he said. "It's counterintuitive to add new restrictions on technology that is inherently more flexible than its physical counterpart."

You know, amid all of the lawyer crimes in the world, stealing rights has to be the biggest.

It's not up to lawyers to decide who owns these rights, it is up to the Authors backed up by the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court.

It is obvious to this ASCAP member that reselling a downloaded song is an absolute "No-No!"

Emphasis is added because eBay doesn't seem to be able to do anything that is not fraudulent. But they had better stop when it comes to Copyright Law because this time they will be put in jail! And this has opened the door to a full investigation of eBay.

Since when did any author give the right to resell to eBay? I don't see individually signed contracts, in fact, I don't see any contract at all, which makes eBay a Copyright Infringer, a liar, an embezzler, a mail fraud committer, but we already know that eBay is full of fraud, don't we, from their past record?

I gave CDBaby the right to sell my CD's. I then gave iTunes the right to sell my songs via download.

BUT I NEVER GAVE eBay ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!

And rights in copyright not granted by an "instrument" usually a license or similar conveyance for a specified period of time, according to the Supreme Court, remain with the original Author. Not the copyright holder or owner, but the aboriginal Author of the work! And the Author has the right to revoke any license at any time, even the rights granted to record companies and publishers.

Recently, the software industry has become the little brother of the music composers, who are the dominant force in Copyright Law. If Microsoft can sell you a program and tell you you are not permitted to resell it, then they learned if from the music writers. We know an aweful lot about Copyright Law because we've had so many companies stealing so much from us for so long, that we have been forced to compile the world's largest collection of copyright cases to bring the companies that commit Copyright Infringement, a federal crime, into line.

It is time that the "news" people started asking the Authors what Copyright Law means, since it is their law, not the lawyer's law, not the companies' law, and not even the courts' law, but by the U.S. Constitution it is the law that belongs solely to the Authors.

eBay really needs to be investigated.

You do not have the right to resell a downloadable song. You may not have the right any longer to resell recorded songs on physical media. Rights change and can be revoked when new technologies arise, but they can only be changed by their creators. And we, the Authors, are the absolute creators of all rights in our works. The Supreme Court and the Constitution back us up fully on this.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CNET's Site Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to:

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.